Question: When did the Ottoman empire decline?

Answer: into the late nineteenth century

With Constantinople as its capital and control of lands around the Mediterranean basin, the Ottoman Empire was at the centre of interactions between the Eastern and Western worlds for six centuries. <hl> Following a long period of military setbacks against European powers, the Ottoman Empire gradually declined into the late nineteenth century . <hl> The empire allied with Germany in the early 20th century, with the imperial ambition of recovering its lost territories, joining in World War I to achieve this ambition on the side of Germany and the Central Powers. While the Empire was able to largely hold its own during the conflict, it was struggling with internal dissent, especially with the Arab Revolt in its Arabian holdings. Starting before the war, but growing increasingly common and violent during it, major atrocities were committed by the Ottoman government against the Armenians, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks. The Empire's defeat and the occupation of part of its territory by the Allied Powers in the aftermath of World War I resulted in the emergence of a new state, Turkey, in the Ottoman Anatolian heartland following the Turkish War of Independence, as well as the founding of modern Balkan and Middle Eastern states and the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire.

With Constantinople as its capital and control of lands around the Mediterranean basin, the Ottoman Empire was at the centre of interactions between the Eastern and Western worlds for six centuries. Following a long period of military setbacks against European powers, the Ottoman Empire gradually declined <hl> into the late nineteenth century <hl>. The empire allied with Germany in the early 20th century, with the imperial ambition of recovering its lost territories, joining in World War I to achieve this ambition on the side of Germany and the Central Powers. While the Empire was able to largely hold its own during the conflict, it was struggling with internal dissent, especially with the Arab Revolt in its Arabian holdings. Starting before the war, but growing increasingly common and violent during it, major atrocities were committed by the Ottoman government against the Armenians, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks. The Empire's defeat and the occupation of part of its territory by the Allied Powers in the aftermath of World War I resulted in the emergence of a new state, Turkey, in the Ottoman Anatolian heartland following the Turkish War of Independence, as well as the founding of modern Balkan and Middle Eastern states and the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire.

Following a long period of military setbacks against European powers, the Ottoman Empire gradually declined <hl> into the late nineteenth century <hl> .


Question: What nation did the Ottoman empire align with in the 20th century?

With Constantinople as its capital and control of lands around the Mediterranean basin, the Ottoman Empire was at the centre of interactions between the Eastern and Western worlds for six centuries. Following a long period of military setbacks against European powers, the Ottoman Empire gradually declined into the late nineteenth century. The empire allied with Germany in the early 20th century, with the imperial ambition of recovering its lost territories, joining in World War I to achieve this ambition on the side of Germany and the Central Powers. While the Empire was able to largely hold its own during the conflict, it was struggling with internal dissent, especially with the Arab Revolt in its Arabian holdings. Starting before the war, but growing increasingly common and violent during it, major atrocities were committed by the Ottoman government against the Armenians, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks. The Empire's defeat and the occupation of part of its territory by the Allied Powers in the aftermath of World War I resulted in the emergence of a new state, Turkey, in the Ottoman Anatolian heartland following the Turkish War of Independence, as well as the founding of modern Balkan and Middle Eastern states and the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire.

Answer: Germany

With Constantinople as its capital and control of lands around the Mediterranean basin, the Ottoman Empire was at the centre of interactions between the Eastern and Western worlds for six centuries. Following a long period of military setbacks against European powers, the Ottoman Empire gradually declined into the late nineteenth century. <hl> The empire allied with Germany in the early 20th century, with the imperial ambition of recovering its lost territories, joining in World War I to achieve this ambition on the side of Germany and the Central Powers. <hl> While the Empire was able to largely hold its own during the conflict, it was struggling with internal dissent, especially with the Arab Revolt in its Arabian holdings. Starting before the war, but growing increasingly common and violent during it, major atrocities were committed by the Ottoman government against the Armenians, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks. The Empire's defeat and the occupation of part of its territory by the Allied Powers in the aftermath of World War I resulted in the emergence of a new state, Turkey, in the Ottoman Anatolian heartland following the Turkish War of Independence, as well as the founding of modern Balkan and Middle Eastern states and the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire.

With Constantinople as its capital and control of lands around the Mediterranean basin, the Ottoman Empire was at the centre of interactions between the Eastern and Western worlds for six centuries. Following a long period of military setbacks against European powers, the Ottoman Empire gradually declined into the late nineteenth century. The empire allied with <hl> Germany <hl> in the early 20th century, with the imperial ambition of recovering its lost territories, joining in World War I to achieve this ambition on the side of Germany and the Central Powers. While the Empire was able to largely hold its own during the conflict, it was struggling with internal dissent, especially with the Arab Revolt in its Arabian holdings. Starting before the war, but growing increasingly common and violent during it, major atrocities were committed by the Ottoman government against the Armenians, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks. The Empire's defeat and the occupation of part of its territory by the Allied Powers in the aftermath of World War I resulted in the emergence of a new state, Turkey, in the Ottoman Anatolian heartland following the Turkish War of Independence, as well as the founding of modern Balkan and Middle Eastern states and the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire.


Question: What led to the decline of the Ottoman empire?

Answer: military setbacks against European powers

With Constantinople as its capital and control of lands around the Mediterranean basin, the Ottoman Empire was at the centre of interactions between the Eastern and Western worlds for six centuries. <hl> Following a long period of military setbacks against European powers , the Ottoman Empire gradually declined into the late nineteenth century. <hl> The empire allied with Germany in the early 20th century, with the imperial ambition of recovering its lost territories, joining in World War I to achieve this ambition on the side of Germany and the Central Powers. While the Empire was able to largely hold its own during the conflict, it was struggling with internal dissent, especially with the Arab Revolt in its Arabian holdings. Starting before the war, but growing increasingly common and violent during it, major atrocities were committed by the Ottoman government against the Armenians, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks. The Empire's defeat and the occupation of part of its territory by the Allied Powers in the aftermath of World War I resulted in the emergence of a new state, Turkey, in the Ottoman Anatolian heartland following the Turkish War of Independence, as well as the founding of modern Balkan and Middle Eastern states and the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire.

With Constantinople as its capital and control of lands around the Mediterranean basin, the Ottoman Empire was at the centre of interactions between the Eastern and Western worlds for six centuries. Following a long period of <hl> military setbacks against European powers <hl>, the Ottoman Empire gradually declined into the late nineteenth century. The empire allied with Germany in the early 20th century, with the imperial ambition of recovering its lost territories, joining in World War I to achieve this ambition on the side of Germany and the Central Powers. While the Empire was able to largely hold its own during the conflict, it was struggling with internal dissent, especially with the Arab Revolt in its Arabian holdings. Starting before the war, but growing increasingly common and violent during it, major atrocities were committed by the Ottoman government against the Armenians, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks. The Empire's defeat and the occupation of part of its territory by the Allied Powers in the aftermath of World War I resulted in the emergence of a new state, Turkey, in the Ottoman Anatolian heartland following the Turkish War of Independence, as well as the founding of modern Balkan and Middle Eastern states and the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire.

Following a long period of <hl> military setbacks against European powers <hl> , the Ottoman Empire gradually declined into the late nineteenth century.


Question: An anglicization of the name Osman I results in what word?

The word Ottoman is a historical anglicisation of the name of Osman I, the founder of the Empire and of the ruling House of Osman (also known as the Ottoman dynasty). Osman's name in turn was derived from the Persian form of the name ʿUthmān عثمان of ultimately Arabic origin. In Ottoman Turkish, the empire was referred to as Devlet-i ʿAliyye-yi ʿOsmâniyye (دَوْلَتِ عَلِيّهٔ عُثمَانِیّه), (literally "The Supreme State of the Ottomans") or alternatively Osmanlı Devleti (عثمانلى دولتى).[dn 5] In Modern Turkish, it is known as Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ("Ottoman Empire") or Osmanlı Devleti ("The Ottoman State").

Answer: Ottoman

<hl> The word Ottoman is a historical anglicisation of the name of Osman I, the founder of the Empire and of the ruling House of Osman (also known as the Ottoman dynasty). <hl> Osman's name in turn was derived from the Persian form of the name ʿUthmān عثمان of ultimately Arabic origin. In Ottoman Turkish, the empire was referred to as Devlet-i ʿAliyye-yi ʿOsmâniyye (دَوْلَتِ عَلِيّهٔ عُثمَانِیّه), (literally "The Supreme State of the Ottomans") or alternatively Osmanlı Devleti (عثمانلى دولتى).[dn 5] In Modern Turkish, it is known as Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ("Ottoman Empire") or Osmanlı Devleti ("The Ottoman State").

The word <hl> Ottoman <hl> is a historical anglicisation of the name of Osman I, the founder of the Empire and of the ruling House of Osman (also known as the Ottoman dynasty). Osman's name in turn was derived from the Persian form of the name ʿUthmān عثمان of ultimately Arabic origin. In Ottoman Turkish, the empire was referred to as Devlet-i ʿAliyye-yi ʿOsmâniyye (دَوْلَتِ عَلِيّهٔ عُثمَانِیّه), (literally "The Supreme State of the Ottomans") or alternatively Osmanlı Devleti (عثمانلى دولتى).[dn 5] In Modern Turkish, it is known as Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ("Ottoman Empire") or Osmanlı Devleti ("The Ottoman State").


Question: What house was the founder of the Ottoman empire?

Answer: House of Osman

<hl> The word Ottoman is a historical anglicisation of the name of Osman I, the founder of the Empire and of the ruling House of Osman (also known as the Ottoman dynasty). <hl> Osman's name in turn was derived from the Persian form of the name ʿUthmān عثمان of ultimately Arabic origin. In Ottoman Turkish, the empire was referred to as Devlet-i ʿAliyye-yi ʿOsmâniyye (دَوْلَتِ عَلِيّهٔ عُثمَانِیّه), (literally "The Supreme State of the Ottomans") or alternatively Osmanlı Devleti (عثمانلى دولتى).[dn 5] In Modern Turkish, it is known as Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ("Ottoman Empire") or Osmanlı Devleti ("The Ottoman State").

The word Ottoman is a historical anglicisation of the name of Osman I, the founder of the Empire and of the ruling <hl> House of Osman <hl> (also known as the Ottoman dynasty). Osman's name in turn was derived from the Persian form of the name ʿUthmān عثمان of ultimately Arabic origin. In Ottoman Turkish, the empire was referred to as Devlet-i ʿAliyye-yi ʿOsmâniyye (دَوْلَتِ عَلِيّهٔ عُثمَانِیّه), (literally "The Supreme State of the Ottomans") or alternatively Osmanlı Devleti (عثمانلى دولتى).[dn 5] In Modern Turkish, it is known as Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ("Ottoman Empire") or Osmanlı Devleti ("The Ottoman State").


Question: What was another name for the Ottoman Dynasty?

Answer: House of Osman

<hl> The word Ottoman is a historical anglicisation of the name of Osman I, the founder of the Empire and of the ruling House of Osman (also known as the Ottoman dynasty). <hl> Osman's name in turn was derived from the Persian form of the name ʿUthmān عثمان of ultimately Arabic origin. In Ottoman Turkish, the empire was referred to as Devlet-i ʿAliyye-yi ʿOsmâniyye (دَوْلَتِ عَلِيّهٔ عُثمَانِیّه), (literally "The Supreme State of the Ottomans") or alternatively Osmanlı Devleti (عثمانلى دولتى).[dn 5] In Modern Turkish, it is known as Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ("Ottoman Empire") or Osmanlı Devleti ("The Ottoman State").

The word Ottoman is a historical anglicisation of the name of Osman I, the founder of the Empire and of the ruling <hl> House of Osman <hl> (also known as the Ottoman dynasty). Osman's name in turn was derived from the Persian form of the name ʿUthmān عثمان of ultimately Arabic origin. In Ottoman Turkish, the empire was referred to as Devlet-i ʿAliyye-yi ʿOsmâniyye (دَوْلَتِ عَلِيّهٔ عُثمَانِیّه), (literally "The Supreme State of the Ottomans") or alternatively Osmanlı Devleti (عثمانلى دولتى).[dn 5] In Modern Turkish, it is known as Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ("Ottoman Empire") or Osmanlı Devleti ("The Ottoman State").


Question: What is the origin of Osman's name?

Answer: Arabic

The word Ottoman is a historical anglicisation of the name of Osman I, the founder of the Empire and of the ruling House of Osman (also known as the Ottoman dynasty). <hl> Osman's name in turn was derived from the Persian form of the name ʿUthmān عثمان of ultimately Arabic origin. <hl> In Ottoman Turkish, the empire was referred to as Devlet-i ʿAliyye-yi ʿOsmâniyye (دَوْلَتِ عَلِيّهٔ عُثمَانِیّه), (literally "The Supreme State of the Ottomans") or alternatively Osmanlı Devleti (عثمانلى دولتى).[dn 5] In Modern Turkish, it is known as Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ("Ottoman Empire") or Osmanlı Devleti ("The Ottoman State").

The word Ottoman is a historical anglicisation of the name of Osman I, the founder of the Empire and of the ruling House of Osman (also known as the Ottoman dynasty). Osman's name in turn was derived from the Persian form of the name ʿUthmān عثمان of ultimately <hl> Arabic <hl> origin. In Ottoman Turkish, the empire was referred to as Devlet-i ʿAliyye-yi ʿOsmâniyye (دَوْلَتِ عَلِيّهٔ عُثمَانِیّه), (literally "The Supreme State of the Ottomans") or alternatively Osmanlı Devleti (عثمانلى دولتى).[dn 5] In Modern Turkish, it is known as Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ("Ottoman Empire") or Osmanlı Devleti ("The Ottoman State").


Question: In a literal sense what was the Ottoman empire referred to as?

Answer: The Supreme State of the Ottomans

The word Ottoman is a historical anglicisation of the name of Osman I, the founder of the Empire and of the ruling House of Osman (also known as the Ottoman dynasty). Osman's name in turn was derived from the Persian form of the name ʿUthmān عثمان of ultimately Arabic origin. <hl> In Ottoman Turkish, the empire was referred to as Devlet-i ʿAliyye-yi ʿOsmâniyye (دَوْلَتِ عَلِيّهٔ عُثمَانِیّه), (literally " The Supreme State of the Ottomans ") or alternatively Osmanlı Devleti (عثمانلى دولتى).[dn 5] In Modern Turkish, it is known as Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ("Ottoman Empire") or Osmanlı Devleti ("The Ottoman State"). <hl>

The word Ottoman is a historical anglicisation of the name of Osman I, the founder of the Empire and of the ruling House of Osman (also known as the Ottoman dynasty). Osman's name in turn was derived from the Persian form of the name ʿUthmān عثمان of ultimately Arabic origin. In Ottoman Turkish, the empire was referred to as Devlet-i ʿAliyye-yi ʿOsmâniyye (دَوْلَتِ عَلِيّهٔ عُثمَانِیّه), (literally "<hl> The Supreme State of the Ottomans <hl>") or alternatively Osmanlı Devleti (عثمانلى دولتى).[dn 5] In Modern Turkish, it is known as Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ("Ottoman Empire") or Osmanlı Devleti ("The Ottoman State").

In Ottoman Turkish, the empire was referred to as Devlet-i ʿAliyye-yi ʿOsmâniyye (دَوْلَتِ عَلِيّهٔ عُثمَانِیّه), (literally " <hl> The Supreme State of the Ottomans <hl> ") or alternatively Osmanlı Devleti (عثمانلى دولتى).[dn 5] In Modern Turkish, it is known as Osmanlı İmparatorluğu ("Ottoman Empire") or Osmanlı Devleti ("The Ottoman State").


Question: Who was the father of Osman I?

Ertuğrul, the father of Osman I (founder of the Ottoman Empire), arrived in Anatolia from Merv (Turkmenistan) with 400 horsemen to aid the Seljuks of Rum against the Byzantines. After the demise of the Turkish Seljuk Sultanate of Rum in the 14th century, Anatolia was divided into a patchwork of independent, mostly Turkish states, the so-called Ghazi emirates. One of the emirates was led by Osman I (1258–1326), from whom the name Ottoman is derived. Osman I extended the frontiers of Turkish settlement toward the edge of the Byzantine Empire. It is not well understood how the early Ottomans came to dominate their neighbours, as the history of medieval Anatolia is still little known.

Answer: Ertuğrul

<hl> Ertuğrul , the father of Osman I (founder of the Ottoman Empire), arrived in Anatolia from Merv (Turkmenistan) with 400 horsemen to aid the Seljuks of Rum against the Byzantines. <hl> After the demise of the Turkish Seljuk Sultanate of Rum in the 14th century, Anatolia was divided into a patchwork of independent, mostly Turkish states, the so-called Ghazi emirates. One of the emirates was led by Osman I (1258–1326), from whom the name Ottoman is derived. Osman I extended the frontiers of Turkish settlement toward the edge of the Byzantine Empire. It is not well understood how the early Ottomans came to dominate their neighbours, as the history of medieval Anatolia is still little known.

<hl> Ertuğrul <hl>, the father of Osman I (founder of the Ottoman Empire), arrived in Anatolia from Merv (Turkmenistan) with 400 horsemen to aid the Seljuks of Rum against the Byzantines. After the demise of the Turkish Seljuk Sultanate of Rum in the 14th century, Anatolia was divided into a patchwork of independent, mostly Turkish states, the so-called Ghazi emirates. One of the emirates was led by Osman I (1258–1326), from whom the name Ottoman is derived. Osman I extended the frontiers of Turkish settlement toward the edge of the Byzantine Empire. It is not well understood how the early Ottomans came to dominate their neighbours, as the history of medieval Anatolia is still little known.

<hl> Ertuğrul <hl> , the father of Osman I (founder of the Ottoman Empire), arrived in Anatolia from Merv (Turkmenistan) with 400 horsemen to aid the Seljuks of Rum against the Byzantines.


Question: How many horsemen did Osman I's father bring to aid the Seljuks of Rum?

Answer: 400 horsemen

<hl> Ertuğrul, the father of Osman I (founder of the Ottoman Empire), arrived in Anatolia from Merv (Turkmenistan) with 400 horsemen to aid the Seljuks of Rum against the Byzantines. <hl> After the demise of the Turkish Seljuk Sultanate of Rum in the 14th century, Anatolia was divided into a patchwork of independent, mostly Turkish states, the so-called Ghazi emirates. One of the emirates was led by Osman I (1258–1326), from whom the name Ottoman is derived. Osman I extended the frontiers of Turkish settlement toward the edge of the Byzantine Empire. It is not well understood how the early Ottomans came to dominate their neighbours, as the history of medieval Anatolia is still little known.

Ertuğrul, the father of Osman I (founder of the Ottoman Empire), arrived in Anatolia from Merv (Turkmenistan) with <hl> 400 horsemen <hl> to aid the Seljuks of Rum against the Byzantines. After the demise of the Turkish Seljuk Sultanate of Rum in the 14th century, Anatolia was divided into a patchwork of independent, mostly Turkish states, the so-called Ghazi emirates. One of the emirates was led by Osman I (1258–1326), from whom the name Ottoman is derived. Osman I extended the frontiers of Turkish settlement toward the edge of the Byzantine Empire. It is not well understood how the early Ottomans came to dominate their neighbours, as the history of medieval Anatolia is still little known.


Question: When did the Turkish Seljuk Sultanate of Rum reach its demise?

Answer: 14th century

Ertuğrul, the father of Osman I (founder of the Ottoman Empire), arrived in Anatolia from Merv (Turkmenistan) with 400 horsemen to aid the Seljuks of Rum against the Byzantines. <hl> After the demise of the Turkish Seljuk Sultanate of Rum in the 14th century , Anatolia was divided into a patchwork of independent, mostly Turkish states, the so-called Ghazi emirates. <hl> One of the emirates was led by Osman I (1258–1326), from whom the name Ottoman is derived. Osman I extended the frontiers of Turkish settlement toward the edge of the Byzantine Empire. It is not well understood how the early Ottomans came to dominate their neighbours, as the history of medieval Anatolia is still little known.

Ertuğrul, the father of Osman I (founder of the Ottoman Empire), arrived in Anatolia from Merv (Turkmenistan) with 400 horsemen to aid the Seljuks of Rum against the Byzantines. After the demise of the Turkish Seljuk Sultanate of Rum in the <hl> 14th century <hl>, Anatolia was divided into a patchwork of independent, mostly Turkish states, the so-called Ghazi emirates. One of the emirates was led by Osman I (1258–1326), from whom the name Ottoman is derived. Osman I extended the frontiers of Turkish settlement toward the edge of the Byzantine Empire. It is not well understood how the early Ottomans came to dominate their neighbours, as the history of medieval Anatolia is still little known.

After the demise of the Turkish Seljuk Sultanate of Rum in the <hl> 14th century <hl> , Anatolia was divided into a patchwork of independent, mostly Turkish states, the so-called Ghazi emirates.


Question: What did the divided Anatolia end up being referred to as?

Answer: Ghazi emirates

Ertuğrul, the father of Osman I (founder of the Ottoman Empire), arrived in Anatolia from Merv (Turkmenistan) with 400 horsemen to aid the Seljuks of Rum against the Byzantines. <hl> After the demise of the Turkish Seljuk Sultanate of Rum in the 14th century, Anatolia was divided into a patchwork of independent, mostly Turkish states, the so-called Ghazi emirates . <hl> One of the emirates was led by Osman I (1258–1326), from whom the name Ottoman is derived. Osman I extended the frontiers of Turkish settlement toward the edge of the Byzantine Empire. It is not well understood how the early Ottomans came to dominate their neighbours, as the history of medieval Anatolia is still little known.

Ertuğrul, the father of Osman I (founder of the Ottoman Empire), arrived in Anatolia from Merv (Turkmenistan) with 400 horsemen to aid the Seljuks of Rum against the Byzantines. After the demise of the Turkish Seljuk Sultanate of Rum in the 14th century, Anatolia was divided into a patchwork of independent, mostly Turkish states, the so-called <hl> Ghazi emirates <hl>. One of the emirates was led by Osman I (1258–1326), from whom the name Ottoman is derived. Osman I extended the frontiers of Turkish settlement toward the edge of the Byzantine Empire. It is not well understood how the early Ottomans came to dominate their neighbours, as the history of medieval Anatolia is still little known.

After the demise of the Turkish Seljuk Sultanate of Rum in the 14th century, Anatolia was divided into a patchwork of independent, mostly Turkish states, the so-called <hl> Ghazi emirates <hl> .


Question: To the edge of what empire did Osman I push Turkish settlements?

Answer: Byzantine Empire

Ertuğrul, the father of Osman I (founder of the Ottoman Empire), arrived in Anatolia from Merv (Turkmenistan) with 400 horsemen to aid the Seljuks of Rum against the Byzantines. After the demise of the Turkish Seljuk Sultanate of Rum in the 14th century, Anatolia was divided into a patchwork of independent, mostly Turkish states, the so-called Ghazi emirates. One of the emirates was led by Osman I (1258–1326), from whom the name Ottoman is derived. <hl> Osman I extended the frontiers of Turkish settlement toward the edge of the Byzantine Empire . <hl> It is not well understood how the early Ottomans came to dominate their neighbours, as the history of medieval Anatolia is still little known.

Ertuğrul, the father of Osman I (founder of the Ottoman Empire), arrived in Anatolia from Merv (Turkmenistan) with 400 horsemen to aid the Seljuks of Rum against the Byzantines. After the demise of the Turkish Seljuk Sultanate of Rum in the 14th century, Anatolia was divided into a patchwork of independent, mostly Turkish states, the so-called Ghazi emirates. One of the emirates was led by Osman I (1258–1326), from whom the name Ottoman is derived. Osman I extended the frontiers of Turkish settlement toward the edge of the <hl> Byzantine Empire <hl>. It is not well understood how the early Ottomans came to dominate their neighbours, as the history of medieval Anatolia is still little known.

Osman I extended the frontiers of Turkish settlement toward the edge of the <hl> Byzantine Empire <hl> .


Question: Which city did Osman's son capture?

In the century after the death of Osman I, Ottoman rule began to extend over the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans. Osman's son, Orhan, captured the northwestern Anatolian city of Bursa in 1324, and made it the new capital of the Ottoman state. This Ottoman conquest meant the loss of Byzantine control over northwestern Anatolia. The important city of Thessaloniki was captured from the Venetians in 1387. The Ottoman victory at Kosovo in 1389 effectively marked the end of Serbian power in the region, paving the way for Ottoman expansion into Europe. The Battle of Nicopolis in 1396, widely regarded as the last large-scale crusade of the Middle Ages, failed to stop the advance of the victorious Ottoman Turks.

Answer: Bursa

In the century after the death of Osman I, Ottoman rule began to extend over the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans. <hl> Osman's son, Orhan, captured the northwestern Anatolian city of Bursa in 1324, and made it the new capital of the Ottoman state. <hl> This Ottoman conquest meant the loss of Byzantine control over northwestern Anatolia. The important city of Thessaloniki was captured from the Venetians in 1387. The Ottoman victory at Kosovo in 1389 effectively marked the end of Serbian power in the region, paving the way for Ottoman expansion into Europe. The Battle of Nicopolis in 1396, widely regarded as the last large-scale crusade of the Middle Ages, failed to stop the advance of the victorious Ottoman Turks.

In the century after the death of Osman I, Ottoman rule began to extend over the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans. Osman's son, Orhan, captured the northwestern Anatolian city of <hl> Bursa <hl> in 1324, and made it the new capital of the Ottoman state. This Ottoman conquest meant the loss of Byzantine control over northwestern Anatolia. The important city of Thessaloniki was captured from the Venetians in 1387. The Ottoman victory at Kosovo in 1389 effectively marked the end of Serbian power in the region, paving the way for Ottoman expansion into Europe. The Battle of Nicopolis in 1396, widely regarded as the last large-scale crusade of the Middle Ages, failed to stop the advance of the victorious Ottoman Turks.


Question: In what year did Osman's son capture an Anatolian city?

Answer: 1324

In the century after the death of Osman I, Ottoman rule began to extend over the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans. <hl> Osman's son, Orhan, captured the northwestern Anatolian city of Bursa in 1324 , and made it the new capital of the Ottoman state. <hl> This Ottoman conquest meant the loss of Byzantine control over northwestern Anatolia. The important city of Thessaloniki was captured from the Venetians in 1387. The Ottoman victory at Kosovo in 1389 effectively marked the end of Serbian power in the region, paving the way for Ottoman expansion into Europe. The Battle of Nicopolis in 1396, widely regarded as the last large-scale crusade of the Middle Ages, failed to stop the advance of the victorious Ottoman Turks.

In the century after the death of Osman I, Ottoman rule began to extend over the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans. Osman's son, Orhan, captured the northwestern Anatolian city of Bursa in <hl> 1324 <hl>, and made it the new capital of the Ottoman state. This Ottoman conquest meant the loss of Byzantine control over northwestern Anatolia. The important city of Thessaloniki was captured from the Venetians in 1387. The Ottoman victory at Kosovo in 1389 effectively marked the end of Serbian power in the region, paving the way for Ottoman expansion into Europe. The Battle of Nicopolis in 1396, widely regarded as the last large-scale crusade of the Middle Ages, failed to stop the advance of the victorious Ottoman Turks.

Osman's son, Orhan, captured the northwestern Anatolian city of Bursa in <hl> 1324 <hl> , and made it the new capital of the Ottoman state.


Question: What was the name of the son of Osman that captured an Anatolian city?

Answer: Orhan

In the century after the death of Osman I, Ottoman rule began to extend over the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans. <hl> Osman's son, Orhan , captured the northwestern Anatolian city of Bursa in 1324, and made it the new capital of the Ottoman state. <hl> This Ottoman conquest meant the loss of Byzantine control over northwestern Anatolia. The important city of Thessaloniki was captured from the Venetians in 1387. The Ottoman victory at Kosovo in 1389 effectively marked the end of Serbian power in the region, paving the way for Ottoman expansion into Europe. The Battle of Nicopolis in 1396, widely regarded as the last large-scale crusade of the Middle Ages, failed to stop the advance of the victorious Ottoman Turks.

In the century after the death of Osman I, Ottoman rule began to extend over the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans. Osman's son, <hl> Orhan <hl>, captured the northwestern Anatolian city of Bursa in 1324, and made it the new capital of the Ottoman state. This Ottoman conquest meant the loss of Byzantine control over northwestern Anatolia. The important city of Thessaloniki was captured from the Venetians in 1387. The Ottoman victory at Kosovo in 1389 effectively marked the end of Serbian power in the region, paving the way for Ottoman expansion into Europe. The Battle of Nicopolis in 1396, widely regarded as the last large-scale crusade of the Middle Ages, failed to stop the advance of the victorious Ottoman Turks.

Osman's son, <hl> Orhan <hl> , captured the northwestern Anatolian city of Bursa in 1324, and made it the new capital of the Ottoman state.


Question: What city was captured from the Venetians in 1387?

Answer: Thessaloniki

In the century after the death of Osman I, Ottoman rule began to extend over the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans. Osman's son, Orhan, captured the northwestern Anatolian city of Bursa in 1324, and made it the new capital of the Ottoman state. This Ottoman conquest meant the loss of Byzantine control over northwestern Anatolia. <hl> The important city of Thessaloniki was captured from the Venetians in 1387. <hl> The Ottoman victory at Kosovo in 1389 effectively marked the end of Serbian power in the region, paving the way for Ottoman expansion into Europe. The Battle of Nicopolis in 1396, widely regarded as the last large-scale crusade of the Middle Ages, failed to stop the advance of the victorious Ottoman Turks.

In the century after the death of Osman I, Ottoman rule began to extend over the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans. Osman's son, Orhan, captured the northwestern Anatolian city of Bursa in 1324, and made it the new capital of the Ottoman state. This Ottoman conquest meant the loss of Byzantine control over northwestern Anatolia. The important city of <hl> Thessaloniki <hl> was captured from the Venetians in 1387. The Ottoman victory at Kosovo in 1389 effectively marked the end of Serbian power in the region, paving the way for Ottoman expansion into Europe. The Battle of Nicopolis in 1396, widely regarded as the last large-scale crusade of the Middle Ages, failed to stop the advance of the victorious Ottoman Turks.


Question: In what year did the Ottoman's have a victory at Kosovo?

Answer: 1389

In the century after the death of Osman I, Ottoman rule began to extend over the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans. Osman's son, Orhan, captured the northwestern Anatolian city of Bursa in 1324, and made it the new capital of the Ottoman state. This Ottoman conquest meant the loss of Byzantine control over northwestern Anatolia. The important city of Thessaloniki was captured from the Venetians in 1387. <hl> The Ottoman victory at Kosovo in 1389 effectively marked the end of Serbian power in the region, paving the way for Ottoman expansion into Europe. <hl> The Battle of Nicopolis in 1396, widely regarded as the last large-scale crusade of the Middle Ages, failed to stop the advance of the victorious Ottoman Turks.

In the century after the death of Osman I, Ottoman rule began to extend over the Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans. Osman's son, Orhan, captured the northwestern Anatolian city of Bursa in 1324, and made it the new capital of the Ottoman state. This Ottoman conquest meant the loss of Byzantine control over northwestern Anatolia. The important city of Thessaloniki was captured from the Venetians in 1387. The Ottoman victory at Kosovo in <hl> 1389 <hl> effectively marked the end of Serbian power in the region, paving the way for Ottoman expansion into Europe. The Battle of Nicopolis in 1396, widely regarded as the last large-scale crusade of the Middle Ages, failed to stop the advance of the victorious Ottoman Turks.


Question: What was an objective of Turkey after its expansion into the Balkans?

With the extension of Turkish dominion into the Balkans, the strategic conquest of Constantinople became a crucial objective. The empire had managed to control nearly all former Byzantine lands surrounding the city, but in 1402 the Byzantines were temporarily relieved when the Turco-Mongol leader Timur, founder of the Timurid Empire, invaded Anatolia from the east. In the Battle of Ankara in 1402, Timur defeated the Ottoman forces and took Sultan Bayezid I as a prisoner, throwing the empire into disorder. The ensuing civil war lasted from 1402 to 1413 as Bayezid's sons fought over succession. It ended when Mehmed I emerged as the sultan and restored Ottoman power, bringing an end to the Interregnum, also known as the Fetret Devri.

Answer: conquest of Constantinople

<hl> With the extension of Turkish dominion into the Balkans, the strategic conquest of Constantinople became a crucial objective. <hl> The empire had managed to control nearly all former Byzantine lands surrounding the city, but in 1402 the Byzantines were temporarily relieved when the Turco-Mongol leader Timur, founder of the Timurid Empire, invaded Anatolia from the east. In the Battle of Ankara in 1402, Timur defeated the Ottoman forces and took Sultan Bayezid I as a prisoner, throwing the empire into disorder. The ensuing civil war lasted from 1402 to 1413 as Bayezid's sons fought over succession. It ended when Mehmed I emerged as the sultan and restored Ottoman power, bringing an end to the Interregnum, also known as the Fetret Devri.

With the extension of Turkish dominion into the Balkans, the strategic <hl> conquest of Constantinople <hl> became a crucial objective. The empire had managed to control nearly all former Byzantine lands surrounding the city, but in 1402 the Byzantines were temporarily relieved when the Turco-Mongol leader Timur, founder of the Timurid Empire, invaded Anatolia from the east. In the Battle of Ankara in 1402, Timur defeated the Ottoman forces and took Sultan Bayezid I as a prisoner, throwing the empire into disorder. The ensuing civil war lasted from 1402 to 1413 as Bayezid's sons fought over succession. It ended when Mehmed I emerged as the sultan and restored Ottoman power, bringing an end to the Interregnum, also known as the Fetret Devri.


Question: What empire were the controlled lands surrounding Constantinople formerly controlled by?

Answer: Byzantine

With the extension of Turkish dominion into the Balkans, the strategic conquest of Constantinople became a crucial objective. <hl> The empire had managed to control nearly all former Byzantine lands surrounding the city, but in 1402 the Byzantines were temporarily relieved when the Turco-Mongol leader Timur, founder of the Timurid Empire, invaded Anatolia from the east. <hl> In the Battle of Ankara in 1402, Timur defeated the Ottoman forces and took Sultan Bayezid I as a prisoner, throwing the empire into disorder. The ensuing civil war lasted from 1402 to 1413 as Bayezid's sons fought over succession. It ended when Mehmed I emerged as the sultan and restored Ottoman power, bringing an end to the Interregnum, also known as the Fetret Devri.

With the extension of Turkish dominion into the Balkans, the strategic conquest of Constantinople became a crucial objective. The empire had managed to control nearly all former <hl> Byzantine <hl> lands surrounding the city, but in 1402 the Byzantines were temporarily relieved when the Turco-Mongol leader Timur, founder of the Timurid Empire, invaded Anatolia from the east. In the Battle of Ankara in 1402, Timur defeated the Ottoman forces and took Sultan Bayezid I as a prisoner, throwing the empire into disorder. The ensuing civil war lasted from 1402 to 1413 as Bayezid's sons fought over succession. It ended when Mehmed I emerged as the sultan and restored Ottoman power, bringing an end to the Interregnum, also known as the Fetret Devri.


Question: What leader invaded Anatolia from the east?

Answer: Timur

With the extension of Turkish dominion into the Balkans, the strategic conquest of Constantinople became a crucial objective. <hl> The empire had managed to control nearly all former Byzantine lands surrounding the city, but in 1402 the Byzantines were temporarily relieved when the Turco-Mongol leader Timur , founder of the Timurid Empire, invaded Anatolia from the east. <hl> In the Battle of Ankara in 1402, Timur defeated the Ottoman forces and took Sultan Bayezid I as a prisoner, throwing the empire into disorder. The ensuing civil war lasted from 1402 to 1413 as Bayezid's sons fought over succession. It ended when Mehmed I emerged as the sultan and restored Ottoman power, bringing an end to the Interregnum, also known as the Fetret Devri.

With the extension of Turkish dominion into the Balkans, the strategic conquest of Constantinople became a crucial objective. The empire had managed to control nearly all former Byzantine lands surrounding the city, but in 1402 the Byzantines were temporarily relieved when the Turco-Mongol leader <hl> Timur <hl>, founder of the Timurid Empire, invaded Anatolia from the east. In the Battle of Ankara in 1402, Timur defeated the Ottoman forces and took Sultan Bayezid I as a prisoner, throwing the empire into disorder. The ensuing civil war lasted from 1402 to 1413 as Bayezid's sons fought over succession. It ended when Mehmed I emerged as the sultan and restored Ottoman power, bringing an end to the Interregnum, also known as the Fetret Devri.

The empire had managed to control nearly all former Byzantine lands surrounding the city, but in 1402 the Byzantines were temporarily relieved when the Turco-Mongol leader <hl> Timur <hl> , founder of the Timurid Empire, invaded Anatolia from the east.


Question: Timur was the founder of what?

Answer: Timurid Empire

With the extension of Turkish dominion into the Balkans, the strategic conquest of Constantinople became a crucial objective. <hl> The empire had managed to control nearly all former Byzantine lands surrounding the city, but in 1402 the Byzantines were temporarily relieved when the Turco-Mongol leader Timur, founder of the Timurid Empire , invaded Anatolia from the east. <hl> In the Battle of Ankara in 1402, Timur defeated the Ottoman forces and took Sultan Bayezid I as a prisoner, throwing the empire into disorder. The ensuing civil war lasted from 1402 to 1413 as Bayezid's sons fought over succession. It ended when Mehmed I emerged as the sultan and restored Ottoman power, bringing an end to the Interregnum, also known as the Fetret Devri.

With the extension of Turkish dominion into the Balkans, the strategic conquest of Constantinople became a crucial objective. The empire had managed to control nearly all former Byzantine lands surrounding the city, but in 1402 the Byzantines were temporarily relieved when the Turco-Mongol leader Timur, founder of the <hl> Timurid Empire <hl>, invaded Anatolia from the east. In the Battle of Ankara in 1402, Timur defeated the Ottoman forces and took Sultan Bayezid I as a prisoner, throwing the empire into disorder. The ensuing civil war lasted from 1402 to 1413 as Bayezid's sons fought over succession. It ended when Mehmed I emerged as the sultan and restored Ottoman power, bringing an end to the Interregnum, also known as the Fetret Devri.

The empire had managed to control nearly all former Byzantine lands surrounding the city, but in 1402 the Byzantines were temporarily relieved when the Turco-Mongol leader Timur, founder of the <hl> Timurid Empire <hl> , invaded Anatolia from the east.


Question: What battle between Timur and the Ottoman empire took place in 1402?

Answer: Battle of Ankara

With the extension of Turkish dominion into the Balkans, the strategic conquest of Constantinople became a crucial objective. The empire had managed to control nearly all former Byzantine lands surrounding the city, but in 1402 the Byzantines were temporarily relieved when the Turco-Mongol leader Timur, founder of the Timurid Empire, invaded Anatolia from the east. <hl> In the Battle of Ankara in 1402, Timur defeated the Ottoman forces and took Sultan Bayezid I as a prisoner, throwing the empire into disorder. <hl> The ensuing civil war lasted from 1402 to 1413 as Bayezid's sons fought over succession. It ended when Mehmed I emerged as the sultan and restored Ottoman power, bringing an end to the Interregnum, also known as the Fetret Devri.

With the extension of Turkish dominion into the Balkans, the strategic conquest of Constantinople became a crucial objective. The empire had managed to control nearly all former Byzantine lands surrounding the city, but in 1402 the Byzantines were temporarily relieved when the Turco-Mongol leader Timur, founder of the Timurid Empire, invaded Anatolia from the east. In the <hl> Battle of Ankara <hl> in 1402, Timur defeated the Ottoman forces and took Sultan Bayezid I as a prisoner, throwing the empire into disorder. The ensuing civil war lasted from 1402 to 1413 as Bayezid's sons fought over succession. It ended when Mehmed I emerged as the sultan and restored Ottoman power, bringing an end to the Interregnum, also known as the Fetret Devri.


Question: Who recovered Ottoman empire territories in the Balkans in the 1430s to the 1450s?

Part of the Ottoman territories in the Balkans (such as Thessaloniki, Macedonia and Kosovo) were temporarily lost after 1402 but were later recovered by Murad II between the 1430s and 1450s. On 10 November 1444, Murad II defeated the Hungarian, Polish, and Wallachian armies under Władysław III of Poland (also King of Hungary) and John Hunyadi at the Battle of Varna, the final battle of the Crusade of Varna, although Albanians under Skanderbeg continued to resist. Four years later, John Hunyadi prepared another army (of Hungarian and Wallachian forces) to attack the Turks but was again defeated by Murad II at the Second Battle of Kosovo in 1448.

Answer: Murad II

<hl> Part of the Ottoman territories in the Balkans (such as Thessaloniki, Macedonia and Kosovo) were temporarily lost after 1402 but were later recovered by Murad II between the 1430s and 1450s. <hl> On 10 November 1444, Murad II defeated the Hungarian, Polish, and Wallachian armies under Władysław III of Poland (also King of Hungary) and John Hunyadi at the Battle of Varna, the final battle of the Crusade of Varna, although Albanians under Skanderbeg continued to resist. Four years later, John Hunyadi prepared another army (of Hungarian and Wallachian forces) to attack the Turks but was again defeated by Murad II at the Second Battle of Kosovo in 1448.

Part of the Ottoman territories in the Balkans (such as Thessaloniki, Macedonia and Kosovo) were temporarily lost after 1402 but were later recovered by <hl> Murad II <hl> between the 1430s and 1450s. On 10 November 1444, Murad II defeated the Hungarian, Polish, and Wallachian armies under Władysław III of Poland (also King of Hungary) and John Hunyadi at the Battle of Varna, the final battle of the Crusade of Varna, although Albanians under Skanderbeg continued to resist. Four years later, John Hunyadi prepared another army (of Hungarian and Wallachian forces) to attack the Turks but was again defeated by Murad II at the Second Battle of Kosovo in 1448.


Question: Władysław III of Poland was also the king of what?

Answer: Hungary

Part of the Ottoman territories in the Balkans (such as Thessaloniki, Macedonia and Kosovo) were temporarily lost after 1402 but were later recovered by Murad II between the 1430s and 1450s. <hl> On 10 November 1444, Murad II defeated the Hungarian, Polish, and Wallachian armies under Władysław III of Poland (also King of Hungary ) <hl> and John Hunyadi at the Battle of Varna, the final battle of the Crusade of Varna, although Albanians under Skanderbeg continued to resist. Four years later, John Hunyadi prepared another army (of Hungarian and Wallachian forces) to attack the Turks but was again defeated by Murad II at the Second Battle of Kosovo in 1448.

Part of the Ottoman territories in the Balkans (such as Thessaloniki, Macedonia and Kosovo) were temporarily lost after 1402 but were later recovered by Murad II between the 1430s and 1450s. On 10 November 1444, Murad II defeated the Hungarian, Polish, and Wallachian armies under Władysław III of Poland (also King of <hl> Hungary <hl>) and John Hunyadi at the Battle of Varna, the final battle of the Crusade of Varna, although Albanians under Skanderbeg continued to resist. Four years later, John Hunyadi prepared another army (of Hungarian and Wallachian forces) to attack the Turks but was again defeated by Murad II at the Second Battle of Kosovo in 1448.

On 10 November 1444, Murad II defeated the Hungarian, Polish, and Wallachian armies under Władysław III of Poland (also King of <hl> Hungary <hl> )


Question: What battle took place on 10 November 1444?

Answer: Battle of Varna

Part of the Ottoman territories in the Balkans (such as Thessaloniki, Macedonia and Kosovo) were temporarily lost after 1402 but were later recovered by Murad II between the 1430s and 1450s. <hl> On 10 November 1444, Murad II defeated the Hungarian, Polish, and Wallachian armies under Władysław III of Poland (also King of Hungary) and John Hunyadi at the Battle of Varna , the final battle of the Crusade of Varna, although Albanians under Skanderbeg continued to resist. <hl> Four years later, John Hunyadi prepared another army (of Hungarian and Wallachian forces) to attack the Turks but was again defeated by Murad II at the Second Battle of Kosovo in 1448.

Part of the Ottoman territories in the Balkans (such as Thessaloniki, Macedonia and Kosovo) were temporarily lost after 1402 but were later recovered by Murad II between the 1430s and 1450s. On 10 November 1444, Murad II defeated the Hungarian, Polish, and Wallachian armies under Władysław III of Poland (also King of Hungary) and John Hunyadi at the <hl> Battle of Varna <hl>, the final battle of the Crusade of Varna, although Albanians under Skanderbeg continued to resist. Four years later, John Hunyadi prepared another army (of Hungarian and Wallachian forces) to attack the Turks but was again defeated by Murad II at the Second Battle of Kosovo in 1448.

On 10 November 1444, Murad II defeated the Hungarian, Polish, and Wallachian armies under Władysław III of Poland (also King of Hungary) and John Hunyadi at the <hl> Battle of Varna <hl> , the final battle of the Crusade of Varna, although Albanians under Skanderbeg continued to resist.


Question: In what battle did Murad II leave as the victory in 1448?

Answer: Second Battle of Kosovo

Part of the Ottoman territories in the Balkans (such as Thessaloniki, Macedonia and Kosovo) were temporarily lost after 1402 but were later recovered by Murad II between the 1430s and 1450s. On 10 November 1444, Murad II defeated the Hungarian, Polish, and Wallachian armies under Władysław III of Poland (also King of Hungary) and John Hunyadi at the Battle of Varna, the final battle of the Crusade of Varna, although Albanians under Skanderbeg continued to resist. <hl> Four years later, John Hunyadi prepared another army (of Hungarian and Wallachian forces) to attack the Turks but was again defeated by Murad II at the Second Battle of Kosovo in 1448. <hl>

Part of the Ottoman territories in the Balkans (such as Thessaloniki, Macedonia and Kosovo) were temporarily lost after 1402 but were later recovered by Murad II between the 1430s and 1450s. On 10 November 1444, Murad II defeated the Hungarian, Polish, and Wallachian armies under Władysław III of Poland (also King of Hungary) and John Hunyadi at the Battle of Varna, the final battle of the Crusade of Varna, although Albanians under Skanderbeg continued to resist. Four years later, John Hunyadi prepared another army (of Hungarian and Wallachian forces) to attack the Turks but was again defeated by Murad II at the <hl> Second Battle of Kosovo <hl> in 1448.


Question: On what date were the armies under Władysław III defeated by Murad II?

Answer: 10 November 1444

Part of the Ottoman territories in the Balkans (such as Thessaloniki, Macedonia and Kosovo) were temporarily lost after 1402 but were later recovered by Murad II between the 1430s and 1450s. <hl> On 10 November 1444 , Murad II defeated the Hungarian, Polish, and Wallachian armies under Władysław III of Poland (also King of Hungary) and John Hunyadi at the Battle of Varna, the final battle of the Crusade of Varna, although Albanians under Skanderbeg continued to resist. <hl> Four years later, John Hunyadi prepared another army (of Hungarian and Wallachian forces) to attack the Turks but was again defeated by Murad II at the Second Battle of Kosovo in 1448.

Part of the Ottoman territories in the Balkans (such as Thessaloniki, Macedonia and Kosovo) were temporarily lost after 1402 but were later recovered by Murad II between the 1430s and 1450s. On <hl> 10 November 1444 <hl>, Murad II defeated the Hungarian, Polish, and Wallachian armies under Władysław III of Poland (also King of Hungary) and John Hunyadi at the Battle of Varna, the final battle of the Crusade of Varna, although Albanians under Skanderbeg continued to resist. Four years later, John Hunyadi prepared another army (of Hungarian and Wallachian forces) to attack the Turks but was again defeated by Murad II at the Second Battle of Kosovo in 1448.

On <hl> 10 November 1444 <hl> , Murad II defeated the Hungarian, Polish, and Wallachian armies under Władysław III of Poland (also King of Hungary) and John Hunyadi at the Battle of Varna, the final battle of the Crusade of Varna, although Albanians under Skanderbeg continued to resist.


Question: Who was the son of Murad II?

The son of Murad II, Mehmed the Conqueror, reorganized the state and the military, and conquered Constantinople on 29 May 1453. Mehmed allowed the Orthodox Church to maintain its autonomy and land in exchange for accepting Ottoman authority. Because of bad relations between the states of western Europe and the later Byzantine Empire, the majority of the Orthodox population accepted Ottoman rule as preferable to Venetian rule. Albanian resistance was a major obstacle to Ottoman expansion on the Italian peninsula.

Answer: Mehmed the Conqueror

<hl> The son of Murad II, Mehmed the Conqueror , reorganized the state and the military, and conquered Constantinople on 29 May 1453. <hl> Mehmed allowed the Orthodox Church to maintain its autonomy and land in exchange for accepting Ottoman authority. Because of bad relations between the states of western Europe and the later Byzantine Empire, the majority of the Orthodox population accepted Ottoman rule as preferable to Venetian rule. Albanian resistance was a major obstacle to Ottoman expansion on the Italian peninsula.

The son of Murad II, <hl> Mehmed the Conqueror <hl>, reorganized the state and the military, and conquered Constantinople on 29 May 1453. Mehmed allowed the Orthodox Church to maintain its autonomy and land in exchange for accepting Ottoman authority. Because of bad relations between the states of western Europe and the later Byzantine Empire, the majority of the Orthodox population accepted Ottoman rule as preferable to Venetian rule. Albanian resistance was a major obstacle to Ottoman expansion on the Italian peninsula.

The son of Murad II, <hl> Mehmed the Conqueror <hl> , reorganized the state and the military, and conquered Constantinople on 29 May 1453.


Question: What city was conquered on 29 May 1453?

Answer: Constantinople

<hl> The son of Murad II, Mehmed the Conqueror, reorganized the state and the military, and conquered Constantinople on 29 May 1453. <hl> Mehmed allowed the Orthodox Church to maintain its autonomy and land in exchange for accepting Ottoman authority. Because of bad relations between the states of western Europe and the later Byzantine Empire, the majority of the Orthodox population accepted Ottoman rule as preferable to Venetian rule. Albanian resistance was a major obstacle to Ottoman expansion on the Italian peninsula.

The son of Murad II, Mehmed the Conqueror, reorganized the state and the military, and conquered <hl> Constantinople <hl> on 29 May 1453. Mehmed allowed the Orthodox Church to maintain its autonomy and land in exchange for accepting Ottoman authority. Because of bad relations between the states of western Europe and the later Byzantine Empire, the majority of the Orthodox population accepted Ottoman rule as preferable to Venetian rule. Albanian resistance was a major obstacle to Ottoman expansion on the Italian peninsula.


Question: What did the Orthodox Church get to keep in exchange for accepting the authority of the Ottoman empire?

Answer: its autonomy and land

The son of Murad II, Mehmed the Conqueror, reorganized the state and the military, and conquered Constantinople on 29 May 1453. <hl> Mehmed allowed the Orthodox Church to maintain its autonomy and land in exchange for accepting Ottoman authority. <hl> Because of bad relations between the states of western Europe and the later Byzantine Empire, the majority of the Orthodox population accepted Ottoman rule as preferable to Venetian rule. Albanian resistance was a major obstacle to Ottoman expansion on the Italian peninsula.

The son of Murad II, Mehmed the Conqueror, reorganized the state and the military, and conquered Constantinople on 29 May 1453. Mehmed allowed the Orthodox Church to maintain <hl> its autonomy and land <hl> in exchange for accepting Ottoman authority. Because of bad relations between the states of western Europe and the later Byzantine Empire, the majority of the Orthodox population accepted Ottoman rule as preferable to Venetian rule. Albanian resistance was a major obstacle to Ottoman expansion on the Italian peninsula.


Question: The Orthodox population of Constantinople preferred Ottoman rule instead of what?

Answer: Venetian rule

The son of Murad II, Mehmed the Conqueror, reorganized the state and the military, and conquered Constantinople on 29 May 1453. Mehmed allowed the Orthodox Church to maintain its autonomy and land in exchange for accepting Ottoman authority. <hl> Because of bad relations between the states of western Europe and the later Byzantine Empire, the majority of the Orthodox population accepted Ottoman rule as preferable to Venetian rule . <hl> Albanian resistance was a major obstacle to Ottoman expansion on the Italian peninsula.

The son of Murad II, Mehmed the Conqueror, reorganized the state and the military, and conquered Constantinople on 29 May 1453. Mehmed allowed the Orthodox Church to maintain its autonomy and land in exchange for accepting Ottoman authority. Because of bad relations between the states of western Europe and the later Byzantine Empire, the majority of the Orthodox population accepted Ottoman rule as preferable to <hl> Venetian rule <hl>. Albanian resistance was a major obstacle to Ottoman expansion on the Italian peninsula.

Because of bad relations between the states of western Europe and the later Byzantine Empire, the majority of the Orthodox population accepted Ottoman rule as preferable to <hl> Venetian rule <hl> .


Question: What was the main obstacle to the expansion of the Ottoman empire into the peninsula of Italy??

Answer: Albanian resistance

The son of Murad II, Mehmed the Conqueror, reorganized the state and the military, and conquered Constantinople on 29 May 1453. Mehmed allowed the Orthodox Church to maintain its autonomy and land in exchange for accepting Ottoman authority. Because of bad relations between the states of western Europe and the later Byzantine Empire, the majority of the Orthodox population accepted Ottoman rule as preferable to Venetian rule. <hl> Albanian resistance was a major obstacle to Ottoman expansion on the Italian peninsula. <hl>

The son of Murad II, Mehmed the Conqueror, reorganized the state and the military, and conquered Constantinople on 29 May 1453. Mehmed allowed the Orthodox Church to maintain its autonomy and land in exchange for accepting Ottoman authority. Because of bad relations between the states of western Europe and the later Byzantine Empire, the majority of the Orthodox population accepted Ottoman rule as preferable to Venetian rule. <hl> Albanian resistance <hl> was a major obstacle to Ottoman expansion on the Italian peninsula.


Question: During what years was Suleiman the Magnificent alive?

Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566) captured Belgrade in 1521, conquered the southern and central parts of the Kingdom of Hungary as part of the Ottoman–Hungarian Wars,[not in citation given] and, after his historical victory in the Battle of Mohács in 1526, he established Turkish rule in the territory of present-day Hungary (except the western part) and other Central European territories. He then laid siege to Vienna in 1529, but failed to take the city. In 1532, he made another attack on Vienna, but was repulsed in the Siege of Güns. Transylvania, Wallachia and, intermittently, Moldavia, became tributary principalities of the Ottoman Empire. In the east, the Ottoman Turks took Baghdad from the Persians in 1535, gaining control of Mesopotamia and naval access to the Persian Gulf. In 1555, the Caucasus became officially partitioned for the first time between the Safavids and the Ottomans, a status quo that would remain until the end of the Russo-Turkish War (1768–74). By this partitioning of the Caucasus as signed in the Peace of Amasya, Western Armenia, and Western Georgia fell into Ottoman hands, while Dagestan, Eastern Armenia, Eastern Georgia, and Azerbaijan remained Persian.

Answer: 1520–1566

<hl> Suleiman the Magnificent ( 1520–1566 ) captured Belgrade in 1521, conquered the southern and central parts of the Kingdom of Hungary as part of the Ottoman–Hungarian Wars,[not in citation given] and, after his historical victory in the Battle of Mohács in 1526, he established Turkish rule in the territory of present-day Hungary (except the western part) and other Central European territories. <hl> He then laid siege to Vienna in 1529, but failed to take the city. In 1532, he made another attack on Vienna, but was repulsed in the Siege of Güns. Transylvania, Wallachia and, intermittently, Moldavia, became tributary principalities of the Ottoman Empire. In the east, the Ottoman Turks took Baghdad from the Persians in 1535, gaining control of Mesopotamia and naval access to the Persian Gulf. In 1555, the Caucasus became officially partitioned for the first time between the Safavids and the Ottomans, a status quo that would remain until the end of the Russo-Turkish War (1768–74). By this partitioning of the Caucasus as signed in the Peace of Amasya, Western Armenia, and Western Georgia fell into Ottoman hands, while Dagestan, Eastern Armenia, Eastern Georgia, and Azerbaijan remained Persian.

Suleiman the Magnificent (<hl> 1520–1566 <hl>) captured Belgrade in 1521, conquered the southern and central parts of the Kingdom of Hungary as part of the Ottoman–Hungarian Wars,[not in citation given] and, after his historical victory in the Battle of Mohács in 1526, he established Turkish rule in the territory of present-day Hungary (except the western part) and other Central European territories. He then laid siege to Vienna in 1529, but failed to take the city. In 1532, he made another attack on Vienna, but was repulsed in the Siege of Güns. Transylvania, Wallachia and, intermittently, Moldavia, became tributary principalities of the Ottoman Empire. In the east, the Ottoman Turks took Baghdad from the Persians in 1535, gaining control of Mesopotamia and naval access to the Persian Gulf. In 1555, the Caucasus became officially partitioned for the first time between the Safavids and the Ottomans, a status quo that would remain until the end of the Russo-Turkish War (1768–74). By this partitioning of the Caucasus as signed in the Peace of Amasya, Western Armenia, and Western Georgia fell into Ottoman hands, while Dagestan, Eastern Armenia, Eastern Georgia, and Azerbaijan remained Persian.

Suleiman the Magnificent ( <hl> 1520–1566 <hl> ) captured Belgrade in 1521, conquered the southern and central parts of the Kingdom of Hungary as part of the Ottoman–Hungarian Wars,[not in citation given] and, after his historical victory in the Battle of Mohács in 1526, he established Turkish rule in the territory of present-day Hungary (except the western part) and other Central European territories.


Question: In what year did Suleiman the Magnificent capture Belgrade?

Answer: 1521

<hl> Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566) captured Belgrade in 1521 , conquered the southern and central parts of the Kingdom of Hungary as part of the Ottoman–Hungarian Wars,[not in citation given] and, after his historical victory in the Battle of Mohács in 1526, he established Turkish rule in the territory of present-day Hungary (except the western part) and other Central European territories. <hl> He then laid siege to Vienna in 1529, but failed to take the city. In 1532, he made another attack on Vienna, but was repulsed in the Siege of Güns. Transylvania, Wallachia and, intermittently, Moldavia, became tributary principalities of the Ottoman Empire. In the east, the Ottoman Turks took Baghdad from the Persians in 1535, gaining control of Mesopotamia and naval access to the Persian Gulf. In 1555, the Caucasus became officially partitioned for the first time between the Safavids and the Ottomans, a status quo that would remain until the end of the Russo-Turkish War (1768–74). By this partitioning of the Caucasus as signed in the Peace of Amasya, Western Armenia, and Western Georgia fell into Ottoman hands, while Dagestan, Eastern Armenia, Eastern Georgia, and Azerbaijan remained Persian.

Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566) captured Belgrade in <hl> 1521 <hl>, conquered the southern and central parts of the Kingdom of Hungary as part of the Ottoman–Hungarian Wars,[not in citation given] and, after his historical victory in the Battle of Mohács in 1526, he established Turkish rule in the territory of present-day Hungary (except the western part) and other Central European territories. He then laid siege to Vienna in 1529, but failed to take the city. In 1532, he made another attack on Vienna, but was repulsed in the Siege of Güns. Transylvania, Wallachia and, intermittently, Moldavia, became tributary principalities of the Ottoman Empire. In the east, the Ottoman Turks took Baghdad from the Persians in 1535, gaining control of Mesopotamia and naval access to the Persian Gulf. In 1555, the Caucasus became officially partitioned for the first time between the Safavids and the Ottomans, a status quo that would remain until the end of the Russo-Turkish War (1768–74). By this partitioning of the Caucasus as signed in the Peace of Amasya, Western Armenia, and Western Georgia fell into Ottoman hands, while Dagestan, Eastern Armenia, Eastern Georgia, and Azerbaijan remained Persian.

Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566) captured Belgrade in <hl> 1521 <hl> , conquered the southern and central parts of the Kingdom of Hungary as part of the Ottoman–Hungarian Wars,[not in citation given] and, after his historical victory in the Battle of Mohács in 1526, he established Turkish rule in the territory of present-day Hungary (except the western part) and other Central European territories.


Question: Suleiman the Magnificent had an important victory in what battle in 1526?

Answer: Battle of Mohács

<hl> Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566) captured Belgrade in 1521, conquered the southern and central parts of the Kingdom of Hungary as part of the Ottoman–Hungarian Wars,[not in citation given] and, after his historical victory in the Battle of Mohács in 1526, he established Turkish rule in the territory of present-day Hungary (except the western part) and other Central European territories. <hl> He then laid siege to Vienna in 1529, but failed to take the city. In 1532, he made another attack on Vienna, but was repulsed in the Siege of Güns. Transylvania, Wallachia and, intermittently, Moldavia, became tributary principalities of the Ottoman Empire. In the east, the Ottoman Turks took Baghdad from the Persians in 1535, gaining control of Mesopotamia and naval access to the Persian Gulf. In 1555, the Caucasus became officially partitioned for the first time between the Safavids and the Ottomans, a status quo that would remain until the end of the Russo-Turkish War (1768–74). By this partitioning of the Caucasus as signed in the Peace of Amasya, Western Armenia, and Western Georgia fell into Ottoman hands, while Dagestan, Eastern Armenia, Eastern Georgia, and Azerbaijan remained Persian.

Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566) captured Belgrade in 1521, conquered the southern and central parts of the Kingdom of Hungary as part of the Ottoman–Hungarian Wars,[not in citation given] and, after his historical victory in the <hl> Battle of Mohács <hl> in 1526, he established Turkish rule in the territory of present-day Hungary (except the western part) and other Central European territories. He then laid siege to Vienna in 1529, but failed to take the city. In 1532, he made another attack on Vienna, but was repulsed in the Siege of Güns. Transylvania, Wallachia and, intermittently, Moldavia, became tributary principalities of the Ottoman Empire. In the east, the Ottoman Turks took Baghdad from the Persians in 1535, gaining control of Mesopotamia and naval access to the Persian Gulf. In 1555, the Caucasus became officially partitioned for the first time between the Safavids and the Ottomans, a status quo that would remain until the end of the Russo-Turkish War (1768–74). By this partitioning of the Caucasus as signed in the Peace of Amasya, Western Armenia, and Western Georgia fell into Ottoman hands, while Dagestan, Eastern Armenia, Eastern Georgia, and Azerbaijan remained Persian.


Question: After a victorious battle in 1526 in what present-day nation was Turkish rule expanded to?

Answer: Hungary

<hl> Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566) captured Belgrade in 1521, conquered the southern and central parts of the Kingdom of Hungary as part of the Ottoman–Hungarian Wars,[not in citation given] and, after his historical victory in the Battle of Mohács in 1526, he established Turkish rule in the territory of present-day Hungary (except the western part) and other Central European territories. <hl> He then laid siege to Vienna in 1529, but failed to take the city. In 1532, he made another attack on Vienna, but was repulsed in the Siege of Güns. Transylvania, Wallachia and, intermittently, Moldavia, became tributary principalities of the Ottoman Empire. In the east, the Ottoman Turks took Baghdad from the Persians in 1535, gaining control of Mesopotamia and naval access to the Persian Gulf. In 1555, the Caucasus became officially partitioned for the first time between the Safavids and the Ottomans, a status quo that would remain until the end of the Russo-Turkish War (1768–74). By this partitioning of the Caucasus as signed in the Peace of Amasya, Western Armenia, and Western Georgia fell into Ottoman hands, while Dagestan, Eastern Armenia, Eastern Georgia, and Azerbaijan remained Persian.

Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566) captured Belgrade in 1521, conquered the southern and central parts of the Kingdom of <hl> Hungary <hl> as part of the Ottoman–Hungarian Wars,[not in citation given] and, after his historical victory in the Battle of Mohács in 1526, he established Turkish rule in the territory of present-day Hungary (except the western part) and other Central European territories. He then laid siege to Vienna in 1529, but failed to take the city. In 1532, he made another attack on Vienna, but was repulsed in the Siege of Güns. Transylvania, Wallachia and, intermittently, Moldavia, became tributary principalities of the Ottoman Empire. In the east, the Ottoman Turks took Baghdad from the Persians in 1535, gaining control of Mesopotamia and naval access to the Persian Gulf. In 1555, the Caucasus became officially partitioned for the first time between the Safavids and the Ottomans, a status quo that would remain until the end of the Russo-Turkish War (1768–74). By this partitioning of the Caucasus as signed in the Peace of Amasya, Western Armenia, and Western Georgia fell into Ottoman hands, while Dagestan, Eastern Armenia, Eastern Georgia, and Azerbaijan remained Persian.


Question: In what siege was Suleiman the Magnificent stopped when attacking Vienna in 1532?

Answer: the Siege of Güns

Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566) captured Belgrade in 1521, conquered the southern and central parts of the Kingdom of Hungary as part of the Ottoman–Hungarian Wars,[not in citation given] and, after his historical victory in the Battle of Mohács in 1526, he established Turkish rule in the territory of present-day Hungary (except the western part) and other Central European territories. He then laid siege to Vienna in 1529, but failed to take the city. <hl> In 1532, he made another attack on Vienna, but was repulsed in the Siege of Güns . <hl> Transylvania, Wallachia and, intermittently, Moldavia, became tributary principalities of the Ottoman Empire. In the east, the Ottoman Turks took Baghdad from the Persians in 1535, gaining control of Mesopotamia and naval access to the Persian Gulf. In 1555, the Caucasus became officially partitioned for the first time between the Safavids and the Ottomans, a status quo that would remain until the end of the Russo-Turkish War (1768–74). By this partitioning of the Caucasus as signed in the Peace of Amasya, Western Armenia, and Western Georgia fell into Ottoman hands, while Dagestan, Eastern Armenia, Eastern Georgia, and Azerbaijan remained Persian.

Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566) captured Belgrade in 1521, conquered the southern and central parts of the Kingdom of Hungary as part of the Ottoman–Hungarian Wars,[not in citation given] and, after his historical victory in the Battle of Mohács in 1526, he established Turkish rule in the territory of present-day Hungary (except the western part) and other Central European territories. He then laid siege to Vienna in 1529, but failed to take the city. In 1532, he made another attack on Vienna, but was repulsed in <hl> the Siege of Güns <hl>. Transylvania, Wallachia and, intermittently, Moldavia, became tributary principalities of the Ottoman Empire. In the east, the Ottoman Turks took Baghdad from the Persians in 1535, gaining control of Mesopotamia and naval access to the Persian Gulf. In 1555, the Caucasus became officially partitioned for the first time between the Safavids and the Ottomans, a status quo that would remain until the end of the Russo-Turkish War (1768–74). By this partitioning of the Caucasus as signed in the Peace of Amasya, Western Armenia, and Western Georgia fell into Ottoman hands, while Dagestan, Eastern Armenia, Eastern Georgia, and Azerbaijan remained Persian.

In 1532, he made another attack on Vienna, but was repulsed in <hl> the Siege of Güns <hl> .


Question: France and the Ottoman Empire united against what?

France and the Ottoman Empire, united by mutual opposition to Habsburg rule, became strong allies. The French conquests of Nice (1543) and Corsica (1553) occurred as a joint venture between the forces of the French king Francis I and Suleiman, and were commanded by the Ottoman admirals Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha and Turgut Reis. A month prior to the siege of Nice, France supported the Ottomans with an artillery unit during the 1543 Ottoman conquest of Esztergom in northern Hungary. After further advances by the Turks, the Habsburg ruler Ferdinand officially recognized Ottoman ascendancy in Hungary in 1547.

Answer: Habsburg rule

<hl> France and the Ottoman Empire, united by mutual opposition to Habsburg rule , became strong allies. <hl> The French conquests of Nice (1543) and Corsica (1553) occurred as a joint venture between the forces of the French king Francis I and Suleiman, and were commanded by the Ottoman admirals Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha and Turgut Reis. A month prior to the siege of Nice, France supported the Ottomans with an artillery unit during the 1543 Ottoman conquest of Esztergom in northern Hungary. After further advances by the Turks, the Habsburg ruler Ferdinand officially recognized Ottoman ascendancy in Hungary in 1547.

France and the Ottoman Empire, united by mutual opposition to <hl> Habsburg rule <hl>, became strong allies. The French conquests of Nice (1543) and Corsica (1553) occurred as a joint venture between the forces of the French king Francis I and Suleiman, and were commanded by the Ottoman admirals Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha and Turgut Reis. A month prior to the siege of Nice, France supported the Ottomans with an artillery unit during the 1543 Ottoman conquest of Esztergom in northern Hungary. After further advances by the Turks, the Habsburg ruler Ferdinand officially recognized Ottoman ascendancy in Hungary in 1547.

France and the Ottoman Empire, united by mutual opposition to <hl> Habsburg rule <hl> , became strong allies.


Question: Where did the French lay conquest in 1553?

Answer: Corsica

France and the Ottoman Empire, united by mutual opposition to Habsburg rule, became strong allies. <hl> The French conquests of Nice (1543) and Corsica (1553) occurred as a joint venture between the forces of the French king Francis I and Suleiman, and were commanded by the Ottoman admirals Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha and Turgut Reis. <hl> A month prior to the siege of Nice, France supported the Ottomans with an artillery unit during the 1543 Ottoman conquest of Esztergom in northern Hungary. After further advances by the Turks, the Habsburg ruler Ferdinand officially recognized Ottoman ascendancy in Hungary in 1547.

France and the Ottoman Empire, united by mutual opposition to Habsburg rule, became strong allies. The French conquests of Nice (1543) and <hl> Corsica <hl> (1553) occurred as a joint venture between the forces of the French king Francis I and Suleiman, and were commanded by the Ottoman admirals Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha and Turgut Reis. A month prior to the siege of Nice, France supported the Ottomans with an artillery unit during the 1543 Ottoman conquest of Esztergom in northern Hungary. After further advances by the Turks, the Habsburg ruler Ferdinand officially recognized Ottoman ascendancy in Hungary in 1547.


Question: The conquest of Nice was an effort by Suleiman and what French king?

Answer: Francis I

France and the Ottoman Empire, united by mutual opposition to Habsburg rule, became strong allies. <hl> The French conquests of Nice (1543) and Corsica (1553) occurred as a joint venture between the forces of the French king Francis I and Suleiman, and were commanded by the Ottoman admirals Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha and Turgut Reis. <hl> A month prior to the siege of Nice, France supported the Ottomans with an artillery unit during the 1543 Ottoman conquest of Esztergom in northern Hungary. After further advances by the Turks, the Habsburg ruler Ferdinand officially recognized Ottoman ascendancy in Hungary in 1547.

France and the Ottoman Empire, united by mutual opposition to Habsburg rule, became strong allies. The French conquests of Nice (1543) and Corsica (1553) occurred as a joint venture between the forces of the French king <hl> Francis I <hl> and Suleiman, and were commanded by the Ottoman admirals Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha and Turgut Reis. A month prior to the siege of Nice, France supported the Ottomans with an artillery unit during the 1543 Ottoman conquest of Esztergom in northern Hungary. After further advances by the Turks, the Habsburg ruler Ferdinand officially recognized Ottoman ascendancy in Hungary in 1547.


Question: What were the names of the Ottoman admirals who commanded the conquest of Nice?

Answer: Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha and Turgut Reis

France and the Ottoman Empire, united by mutual opposition to Habsburg rule, became strong allies. <hl> The French conquests of Nice (1543) and Corsica (1553) occurred as a joint venture between the forces of the French king Francis I and Suleiman, and were commanded by the Ottoman admirals Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha and Turgut Reis . <hl> A month prior to the siege of Nice, France supported the Ottomans with an artillery unit during the 1543 Ottoman conquest of Esztergom in northern Hungary. After further advances by the Turks, the Habsburg ruler Ferdinand officially recognized Ottoman ascendancy in Hungary in 1547.

France and the Ottoman Empire, united by mutual opposition to Habsburg rule, became strong allies. The French conquests of Nice (1543) and Corsica (1553) occurred as a joint venture between the forces of the French king Francis I and Suleiman, and were commanded by the Ottoman admirals <hl> Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha and Turgut Reis <hl>. A month prior to the siege of Nice, France supported the Ottomans with an artillery unit during the 1543 Ottoman conquest of Esztergom in northern Hungary. After further advances by the Turks, the Habsburg ruler Ferdinand officially recognized Ottoman ascendancy in Hungary in 1547.

The French conquests of Nice (1543) and Corsica (1553) occurred as a joint venture between the forces of the French king Francis I and Suleiman, and were commanded by the Ottoman admirals <hl> Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha and Turgut Reis <hl> .


Question: What ruler recognized the Ottomans in 1547?

Answer: Ferdinand

France and the Ottoman Empire, united by mutual opposition to Habsburg rule, became strong allies. The French conquests of Nice (1543) and Corsica (1553) occurred as a joint venture between the forces of the French king Francis I and Suleiman, and were commanded by the Ottoman admirals Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha and Turgut Reis. A month prior to the siege of Nice, France supported the Ottomans with an artillery unit during the 1543 Ottoman conquest of Esztergom in northern Hungary. <hl> After further advances by the Turks, the Habsburg ruler Ferdinand officially recognized Ottoman ascendancy in Hungary in 1547. <hl>

France and the Ottoman Empire, united by mutual opposition to Habsburg rule, became strong allies. The French conquests of Nice (1543) and Corsica (1553) occurred as a joint venture between the forces of the French king Francis I and Suleiman, and were commanded by the Ottoman admirals Barbarossa Hayreddin Pasha and Turgut Reis. A month prior to the siege of Nice, France supported the Ottomans with an artillery unit during the 1543 Ottoman conquest of Esztergom in northern Hungary. After further advances by the Turks, the Habsburg ruler <hl> Ferdinand <hl> officially recognized Ottoman ascendancy in Hungary in 1547.


Question: Who argues that there was steep decline and stagnation after the death of Suleiman?

The stagnation and decline, Stephen Lee argues, was relentless after the death of Suleiman in 1566, interrupted by a few short revivals or reform and recovery. The decline gathered speed so that the Empire in 1699 was, "a mere shadow of that which intimidated East and West alike in 1566." Although there are dissenting scholars, most historians point to "degenerate Sultans, incompetent Grand Viziers, debilitated and ill-equipped armies, corrupt officials, avaricious speculators, grasping enemies, and treacherous friends." The main cause was a failure of leadership, as Lee argues the first 10 sultans from 1292 to 1566, with one exception, had performed admirably. The next 13 sultans from 1566 to 1703, with two exceptions, were lackadaisical or incompetent rulers, says Lee. In a highly centralized system, the failure at the center proved fatal. A direct result was the strengthening of provincial elites who increasingly ignored Constantinople. Secondly the military strength of European enemies grew stronger and stronger, while the Ottoman armies and arms scarcely improved. Finally the Ottoman economic system grew distorted and impoverished, as war caused inflation, world trade moved in other directions, and the deterioration of law and order made economic progress difficult.

Answer: Stephen Lee

<hl> The stagnation and decline, Stephen Lee argues, was relentless after the death of Suleiman in 1566, interrupted by a few short revivals or reform and recovery. <hl> The decline gathered speed so that the Empire in 1699 was, "a mere shadow of that which intimidated East and West alike in 1566." Although there are dissenting scholars, most historians point to "degenerate Sultans, incompetent Grand Viziers, debilitated and ill-equipped armies, corrupt officials, avaricious speculators, grasping enemies, and treacherous friends." The main cause was a failure of leadership, as Lee argues the first 10 sultans from 1292 to 1566, with one exception, had performed admirably. The next 13 sultans from 1566 to 1703, with two exceptions, were lackadaisical or incompetent rulers, says Lee. In a highly centralized system, the failure at the center proved fatal. A direct result was the strengthening of provincial elites who increasingly ignored Constantinople. Secondly the military strength of European enemies grew stronger and stronger, while the Ottoman armies and arms scarcely improved. Finally the Ottoman economic system grew distorted and impoverished, as war caused inflation, world trade moved in other directions, and the deterioration of law and order made economic progress difficult.

The stagnation and decline, <hl> Stephen Lee <hl> argues, was relentless after the death of Suleiman in 1566, interrupted by a few short revivals or reform and recovery. The decline gathered speed so that the Empire in 1699 was, "a mere shadow of that which intimidated East and West alike in 1566." Although there are dissenting scholars, most historians point to "degenerate Sultans, incompetent Grand Viziers, debilitated and ill-equipped armies, corrupt officials, avaricious speculators, grasping enemies, and treacherous friends." The main cause was a failure of leadership, as Lee argues the first 10 sultans from 1292 to 1566, with one exception, had performed admirably. The next 13 sultans from 1566 to 1703, with two exceptions, were lackadaisical or incompetent rulers, says Lee. In a highly centralized system, the failure at the center proved fatal. A direct result was the strengthening of provincial elites who increasingly ignored Constantinople. Secondly the military strength of European enemies grew stronger and stronger, while the Ottoman armies and arms scarcely improved. Finally the Ottoman economic system grew distorted and impoverished, as war caused inflation, world trade moved in other directions, and the deterioration of law and order made economic progress difficult.


Question: In what year did Suleiman die?

Answer: 1566

<hl> The stagnation and decline, Stephen Lee argues, was relentless after the death of Suleiman in 1566 , interrupted by a few short revivals or reform and recovery. <hl> The decline gathered speed so that the Empire in 1699 was, "a mere shadow of that which intimidated East and West alike in 1566." Although there are dissenting scholars, most historians point to "degenerate Sultans, incompetent Grand Viziers, debilitated and ill-equipped armies, corrupt officials, avaricious speculators, grasping enemies, and treacherous friends." The main cause was a failure of leadership, as Lee argues the first 10 sultans from 1292 to 1566, with one exception, had performed admirably. The next 13 sultans from 1566 to 1703, with two exceptions, were lackadaisical or incompetent rulers, says Lee. In a highly centralized system, the failure at the center proved fatal. A direct result was the strengthening of provincial elites who increasingly ignored Constantinople. Secondly the military strength of European enemies grew stronger and stronger, while the Ottoman armies and arms scarcely improved. Finally the Ottoman economic system grew distorted and impoverished, as war caused inflation, world trade moved in other directions, and the deterioration of law and order made economic progress difficult.

The stagnation and decline, Stephen Lee argues, was relentless after the death of Suleiman in <hl> 1566 <hl>, interrupted by a few short revivals or reform and recovery. The decline gathered speed so that the Empire in 1699 was, "a mere shadow of that which intimidated East and West alike in 1566." Although there are dissenting scholars, most historians point to "degenerate Sultans, incompetent Grand Viziers, debilitated and ill-equipped armies, corrupt officials, avaricious speculators, grasping enemies, and treacherous friends." The main cause was a failure of leadership, as Lee argues the first 10 sultans from 1292 to 1566, with one exception, had performed admirably. The next 13 sultans from 1566 to 1703, with two exceptions, were lackadaisical or incompetent rulers, says Lee. In a highly centralized system, the failure at the center proved fatal. A direct result was the strengthening of provincial elites who increasingly ignored Constantinople. Secondly the military strength of European enemies grew stronger and stronger, while the Ottoman armies and arms scarcely improved. Finally the Ottoman economic system grew distorted and impoverished, as war caused inflation, world trade moved in other directions, and the deterioration of law and order made economic progress difficult.

The stagnation and decline, Stephen Lee argues, was relentless after the death of Suleiman in <hl> 1566 <hl> , interrupted by a few short revivals or reform and recovery.


Question: By what year was it argued that the Ottoman empire was merely "a shadow" of what it was in 1566?

Answer: 1699

The stagnation and decline, Stephen Lee argues, was relentless after the death of Suleiman in 1566, interrupted by a few short revivals or reform and recovery. <hl> The decline gathered speed so that the Empire in 1699 was, "a mere shadow of that which intimidated East and West alike in 1566." <hl> Although there are dissenting scholars, most historians point to "degenerate Sultans, incompetent Grand Viziers, debilitated and ill-equipped armies, corrupt officials, avaricious speculators, grasping enemies, and treacherous friends." The main cause was a failure of leadership, as Lee argues the first 10 sultans from 1292 to 1566, with one exception, had performed admirably. The next 13 sultans from 1566 to 1703, with two exceptions, were lackadaisical or incompetent rulers, says Lee. In a highly centralized system, the failure at the center proved fatal. A direct result was the strengthening of provincial elites who increasingly ignored Constantinople. Secondly the military strength of European enemies grew stronger and stronger, while the Ottoman armies and arms scarcely improved. Finally the Ottoman economic system grew distorted and impoverished, as war caused inflation, world trade moved in other directions, and the deterioration of law and order made economic progress difficult.

The stagnation and decline, Stephen Lee argues, was relentless after the death of Suleiman in 1566, interrupted by a few short revivals or reform and recovery. The decline gathered speed so that the Empire in <hl> 1699 <hl> was, "a mere shadow of that which intimidated East and West alike in 1566." Although there are dissenting scholars, most historians point to "degenerate Sultans, incompetent Grand Viziers, debilitated and ill-equipped armies, corrupt officials, avaricious speculators, grasping enemies, and treacherous friends." The main cause was a failure of leadership, as Lee argues the first 10 sultans from 1292 to 1566, with one exception, had performed admirably. The next 13 sultans from 1566 to 1703, with two exceptions, were lackadaisical or incompetent rulers, says Lee. In a highly centralized system, the failure at the center proved fatal. A direct result was the strengthening of provincial elites who increasingly ignored Constantinople. Secondly the military strength of European enemies grew stronger and stronger, while the Ottoman armies and arms scarcely improved. Finally the Ottoman economic system grew distorted and impoverished, as war caused inflation, world trade moved in other directions, and the deterioration of law and order made economic progress difficult.


Question: Beginning and ending with what years does Lee argue that the rules of the Empire were incompetent?

Answer: 1566 to 1703

The stagnation and decline, Stephen Lee argues, was relentless after the death of Suleiman in 1566, interrupted by a few short revivals or reform and recovery. The decline gathered speed so that the Empire in 1699 was, "a mere shadow of that which intimidated East and West alike in 1566." Although there are dissenting scholars, most historians point to "degenerate Sultans, incompetent Grand Viziers, debilitated and ill-equipped armies, corrupt officials, avaricious speculators, grasping enemies, and treacherous friends." The main cause was a failure of leadership, as Lee argues the first 10 sultans from 1292 to 1566, with one exception, had performed admirably. <hl> The next 13 sultans from 1566 to 1703 , with two exceptions, were lackadaisical or incompetent rulers, says Lee. <hl> In a highly centralized system, the failure at the center proved fatal. A direct result was the strengthening of provincial elites who increasingly ignored Constantinople. Secondly the military strength of European enemies grew stronger and stronger, while the Ottoman armies and arms scarcely improved. Finally the Ottoman economic system grew distorted and impoverished, as war caused inflation, world trade moved in other directions, and the deterioration of law and order made economic progress difficult.

The stagnation and decline, Stephen Lee argues, was relentless after the death of Suleiman in 1566, interrupted by a few short revivals or reform and recovery. The decline gathered speed so that the Empire in 1699 was, "a mere shadow of that which intimidated East and West alike in 1566." Although there are dissenting scholars, most historians point to "degenerate Sultans, incompetent Grand Viziers, debilitated and ill-equipped armies, corrupt officials, avaricious speculators, grasping enemies, and treacherous friends." The main cause was a failure of leadership, as Lee argues the first 10 sultans from 1292 to 1566, with one exception, had performed admirably. The next 13 sultans from <hl> 1566 to 1703 <hl>, with two exceptions, were lackadaisical or incompetent rulers, says Lee. In a highly centralized system, the failure at the center proved fatal. A direct result was the strengthening of provincial elites who increasingly ignored Constantinople. Secondly the military strength of European enemies grew stronger and stronger, while the Ottoman armies and arms scarcely improved. Finally the Ottoman economic system grew distorted and impoverished, as war caused inflation, world trade moved in other directions, and the deterioration of law and order made economic progress difficult.

The next 13 sultans from <hl> 1566 to 1703 <hl> , with two exceptions, were lackadaisical or incompetent rulers, says Lee.


Question: What factor caused inflation in the Ottoman empire?

Answer: war

The stagnation and decline, Stephen Lee argues, was relentless after the death of Suleiman in 1566, interrupted by a few short revivals or reform and recovery. The decline gathered speed so that the Empire in 1699 was, "a mere shadow of that which intimidated East and West alike in 1566." Although there are dissenting scholars, most historians point to "degenerate Sultans, incompetent Grand Viziers, debilitated and ill-equipped armies, corrupt officials, avaricious speculators, grasping enemies, and treacherous friends." The main cause was a failure of leadership, as Lee argues the first 10 sultans from 1292 to 1566, with one exception, had performed admirably. The next 13 sultans from 1566 to 1703, with two exceptions, were lackadaisical or incompetent rulers, says Lee. In a highly centralized system, the failure at the center proved fatal. A direct result was the strengthening of provincial elites who increasingly ignored Constantinople. Secondly the military strength of European enemies grew stronger and stronger, while the Ottoman armies and arms scarcely improved. <hl> Finally the Ottoman economic system grew distorted and impoverished, as war caused inflation, world trade moved in other directions, and the deterioration of law and order made economic progress difficult. <hl>

The stagnation and decline, Stephen Lee argues, was relentless after the death of Suleiman in 1566, interrupted by a few short revivals or reform and recovery. The decline gathered speed so that the Empire in 1699 was, "a mere shadow of that which intimidated East and West alike in 1566." Although there are dissenting scholars, most historians point to "degenerate Sultans, incompetent Grand Viziers, debilitated and ill-equipped armies, corrupt officials, avaricious speculators, grasping enemies, and treacherous friends." The main cause was a failure of leadership, as Lee argues the first 10 sultans from 1292 to 1566, with one exception, had performed admirably. The next 13 sultans from 1566 to 1703, with two exceptions, were lackadaisical or incompetent rulers, says Lee. In a highly centralized system, the failure at the center proved fatal. A direct result was the strengthening of provincial elites who increasingly ignored Constantinople. Secondly the military strength of European enemies grew stronger and stronger, while the Ottoman armies and arms scarcely improved. Finally the Ottoman economic system grew distorted and impoverished, as <hl> war <hl> caused inflation, world trade moved in other directions, and the deterioration of law and order made economic progress difficult.


Question: Poor rule by what class of people strained the empire?

The effective military and bureaucratic structures of the previous century came under strain during a protracted period of misrule by weak Sultans. The Ottomans gradually fell behind the Europeans in military technology as the innovation that fed the Empire's forceful expansion became stifled by growing religious and intellectual conservatism. But in spite of these difficulties, the Empire remained a major expansionist power until the Battle of Vienna in 1683, which marked the end of Ottoman expansion into Europe.

Answer: Sultans

<hl> The effective military and bureaucratic structures of the previous century came under strain during a protracted period of misrule by weak Sultans . <hl> The Ottomans gradually fell behind the Europeans in military technology as the innovation that fed the Empire's forceful expansion became stifled by growing religious and intellectual conservatism. But in spite of these difficulties, the Empire remained a major expansionist power until the Battle of Vienna in 1683, which marked the end of Ottoman expansion into Europe.

The effective military and bureaucratic structures of the previous century came under strain during a protracted period of misrule by weak <hl> Sultans <hl>. The Ottomans gradually fell behind the Europeans in military technology as the innovation that fed the Empire's forceful expansion became stifled by growing religious and intellectual conservatism. But in spite of these difficulties, the Empire remained a major expansionist power until the Battle of Vienna in 1683, which marked the end of Ottoman expansion into Europe.

The effective military and bureaucratic structures of the previous century came under strain during a protracted period of misrule by weak <hl> Sultans <hl> .


Question: Europeans gained on the Ottoman empire in what type of technology?

Answer: military technology

The effective military and bureaucratic structures of the previous century came under strain during a protracted period of misrule by weak Sultans. <hl> The Ottomans gradually fell behind the Europeans in military technology as the innovation that fed the Empire's forceful expansion became stifled by growing religious and intellectual conservatism. <hl> But in spite of these difficulties, the Empire remained a major expansionist power until the Battle of Vienna in 1683, which marked the end of Ottoman expansion into Europe.

The effective military and bureaucratic structures of the previous century came under strain during a protracted period of misrule by weak Sultans. The Ottomans gradually fell behind the Europeans in <hl> military technology <hl> as the innovation that fed the Empire's forceful expansion became stifled by growing religious and intellectual conservatism. But in spite of these difficulties, the Empire remained a major expansionist power until the Battle of Vienna in 1683, which marked the end of Ottoman expansion into Europe.